Discourse analysis of decision making episodes in meetings: Politeness theory and critical discourse analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many management activities (e.g. negiotiation, meetings, decision making, presentation and so on) depend on the chair's use and control of language. Therefore, the asymmetric relation between interactants in meetings needs to be considered. Participants in meetings have different positions and interests to defend and they used different ways to express and negotiate their points. The chairperson, on the other hand, is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the discussion and most importantly in making decision. This provides the chairperson with control of topics and turns, expressed through the exercise of power in language use. The present study will examine this asymmetric relations using the politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987) employed by the chairperson and the chair's display of power (Fairclough, 1992, Van Djik, 2001, 2006). The unit of analysis in this study is decision making episodes, using the notion of frame (Goffman, 1974), which involves shared understandings of certain conventions and norms that operate and facilitate participants to make appropriate interpretation of each others. The findings revealed that the chair in meeting 1 preferred to use negative politeness strategies, while the chair in meeting 2 tended to use bald- on- record politeness strategies. With regards to display of power, the chair in meeting 1 displayed power subtly by acknowledging the significant contributions made by members of the meeting to the final decision. The chair in meeting 2, however, was more bold and direct.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)66-92
Number of pages27
Journal3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature
Volume16
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

politeness
discourse analysis
decision making
Critical Discourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
Politeness Theory
Decision Making
language
Politeness Strategies
responsibility
interpretation
management

Keywords

  • Critical discourse analysis
  • Discourse analysis
  • Discourse and manipulation theory
  • Meetings
  • Politeness strategies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Literature and Literary Theory
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{aa6601fd3a094242862eb8548eab5e2b,
title = "Discourse analysis of decision making episodes in meetings: Politeness theory and critical discourse analysis",
abstract = "Many management activities (e.g. negiotiation, meetings, decision making, presentation and so on) depend on the chair's use and control of language. Therefore, the asymmetric relation between interactants in meetings needs to be considered. Participants in meetings have different positions and interests to defend and they used different ways to express and negotiate their points. The chairperson, on the other hand, is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the discussion and most importantly in making decision. This provides the chairperson with control of topics and turns, expressed through the exercise of power in language use. The present study will examine this asymmetric relations using the politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987) employed by the chairperson and the chair's display of power (Fairclough, 1992, Van Djik, 2001, 2006). The unit of analysis in this study is decision making episodes, using the notion of frame (Goffman, 1974), which involves shared understandings of certain conventions and norms that operate and facilitate participants to make appropriate interpretation of each others. The findings revealed that the chair in meeting 1 preferred to use negative politeness strategies, while the chair in meeting 2 tended to use bald- on- record politeness strategies. With regards to display of power, the chair in meeting 1 displayed power subtly by acknowledging the significant contributions made by members of the meeting to the final decision. The chair in meeting 2, however, was more bold and direct.",
keywords = "Critical discourse analysis, Discourse analysis, Discourse and manipulation theory, Meetings, Politeness strategies",
author = "{Mohd Nor}, {Nor Fariza} and Jamaluddin Aziz",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "66--92",
journal = "3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature",
issn = "0128-5157",
publisher = "Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discourse analysis of decision making episodes in meetings

T2 - Politeness theory and critical discourse analysis

AU - Mohd Nor, Nor Fariza

AU - Aziz, Jamaluddin

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Many management activities (e.g. negiotiation, meetings, decision making, presentation and so on) depend on the chair's use and control of language. Therefore, the asymmetric relation between interactants in meetings needs to be considered. Participants in meetings have different positions and interests to defend and they used different ways to express and negotiate their points. The chairperson, on the other hand, is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the discussion and most importantly in making decision. This provides the chairperson with control of topics and turns, expressed through the exercise of power in language use. The present study will examine this asymmetric relations using the politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987) employed by the chairperson and the chair's display of power (Fairclough, 1992, Van Djik, 2001, 2006). The unit of analysis in this study is decision making episodes, using the notion of frame (Goffman, 1974), which involves shared understandings of certain conventions and norms that operate and facilitate participants to make appropriate interpretation of each others. The findings revealed that the chair in meeting 1 preferred to use negative politeness strategies, while the chair in meeting 2 tended to use bald- on- record politeness strategies. With regards to display of power, the chair in meeting 1 displayed power subtly by acknowledging the significant contributions made by members of the meeting to the final decision. The chair in meeting 2, however, was more bold and direct.

AB - Many management activities (e.g. negiotiation, meetings, decision making, presentation and so on) depend on the chair's use and control of language. Therefore, the asymmetric relation between interactants in meetings needs to be considered. Participants in meetings have different positions and interests to defend and they used different ways to express and negotiate their points. The chairperson, on the other hand, is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the discussion and most importantly in making decision. This provides the chairperson with control of topics and turns, expressed through the exercise of power in language use. The present study will examine this asymmetric relations using the politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987) employed by the chairperson and the chair's display of power (Fairclough, 1992, Van Djik, 2001, 2006). The unit of analysis in this study is decision making episodes, using the notion of frame (Goffman, 1974), which involves shared understandings of certain conventions and norms that operate and facilitate participants to make appropriate interpretation of each others. The findings revealed that the chair in meeting 1 preferred to use negative politeness strategies, while the chair in meeting 2 tended to use bald- on- record politeness strategies. With regards to display of power, the chair in meeting 1 displayed power subtly by acknowledging the significant contributions made by members of the meeting to the final decision. The chair in meeting 2, however, was more bold and direct.

KW - Critical discourse analysis

KW - Discourse analysis

KW - Discourse and manipulation theory

KW - Meetings

KW - Politeness strategies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958844401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958844401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79958844401

VL - 16

SP - 66

EP - 92

JO - 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature

JF - 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature

SN - 0128-5157

IS - 2

ER -